Veganism

[Thug4lyfe]

I suppose good on da blokes datz got the discipline and will power to keep the vegan diet. Although, if you is abit tubby, then lose some weight!

[edearl]

I suppose good on da blokes datz got the discipline and will power to keep the vegan diet. Although, if you is abit tubby, then lose some weight!

Working toward both; although, going vegan is by far the easier of the two.

[Thug4lyfe]

I am not fat, only big boned!

[Maizuru]

I really admire this ethical approach. I think being able to fluidly adapt to particular situations is really important when considering diet - on both health and moral grounds. Especially, to consider other people ~ this is really a nice example of upaya and karuna.

I should add, that so many people are obsessed about preserving (or demanding) their particular diets in all times and in all places - no matter what this produces in terms of physical health or perceived moral virtue, it doesn't strike me as an expression of a healthy state of mind.

While there is something to be said for being fluid, there is also something to be said about having firm convictions and beliefs. And yes, I am one of those people who do stick to a vegan diet at all times in all places because I disagree very strongly with the treatment of animals in our society. Since you have stated that this is an unhealthy state of mind, perhaps you will reconsider if I tell you my story of how I became a vegan.

When I was 15, I went dove hunting with my family, and fatally wounded a dove. I was told that we were supposed to be "compassionate" and put the animal out of its misery, but since we were doing this "for the meat" I could not simply shoot it at point-blank range - I needed to kill it with my bare hands. I picked up the bird, and with it shaking with fear in my hands, it looked me in the eyes with such overwhelming sadness. Steadying myself, I tried to break its neck. However, the head came completely off, and it started spurting hot blood all over my hands. It also began flapping its wings even though its head was gone.

I was heart-broken. I realized that animals are living beings who feel pain, bleed warm blood, and do not want to die. I vowed to never eat meat again.

As a result, I became a vegetarian before it was fashionable to do so; at the time, I thought perhaps it was even bad for my health. I said that I would rather become sick and die rather than kill other living beings to survive. I would never again have a part of this.

I feel very strongly that animals should have rights not to be imprisoned, tortured, or killed. They are not simply property that can be used however anyone wants. I feel that many people just do not realize this - see for example this ad which is currently running on various television networks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_XdcY8a1iM

Working for the betterment of all living beings has been one of my guiding principles in life; it was what drew me initially to Buddhism, and in many ways it is even more important to me than Buddhism. I don't force my convictions on others, but do hope that people will awaken to the fact that "meat" is actually the flesh of a living, breathing thing that was killed against its will. It is an unnecessary brutality that I hope will end as soon as possible. Even if it doesn't, I want no part of it.

So, now that you have heard my particular story, does my insistence on preserving my own diet that I have vowed to keep still strike you as an unhealthy state of mind?

[Maizuru]

The point of my above post was not actually seeking approval - the final question was a rhetorical one. My point is rather that there is no way to good way to judge the actions of others without being in their shoes. Each of our actions have consequences. If people make skillful choices - those choices that are beneficial to themselves and to others - they will experience happiness; if they make unskillful choices - those choices that are harmful to themselves and others - they will experience suffering. Judging the actions of others is a very dangerous business to get into; as the Dalai Lama said, it is far better to see one fault in yourself than one thousand faults in someone else. I know your post was well-intentioned, but I just felt like pointing that out and sharing my story. I wish you the best.

[tobes]

While there is something to be said for being fluid, there is also something to be said about having firm convictions and beliefs. And yes, I am one of those people who do stick to a vegan diet at all times in all places because I disagree very strongly with the treatment of animals in our society. Since you have stated that this is an unhealthy state of mind, perhaps you will reconsider if I tell you my story of how I became a vegan.

When I was 15, I went dove hunting with my family, and fatally wounded a dove. I was told that we were supposed to be "compassionate" and put the animal out of its misery, but since we were doing this "for the meat" I could not simply shoot it at point-blank range - I needed to kill it with my bare hands. I picked up the bird, and with it shaking with fear in my hands, it looked me in the eyes with such overwhelming sadness. Steadying myself, I tried to break its neck. However, the head came completely off, and it started spurting hot blood all over my hands. It also began flapping its wings even though its head was gone.

I was heart-broken. I realized that animals are living beings who feel pain, bleed warm blood, and do not want to die. I vowed to never eat meat again.

As a result, I became a vegetarian before it was fashionable to do so; at the time, I thought perhaps it was even bad for my health. I said that I would rather become sick and die rather than kill other living beings to survive. I would never again have a part of this.

I feel very strongly that animals should have rights not to be imprisoned, tortured, or killed. They are not simply property that can be used however anyone wants. I feel that many people just do not realize this - see for example this ad which is currently running on various television networks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_XdcY8a1iM

Working for the betterment of all living beings has been one of my guiding principles in life; it was what drew me initially to Buddhism, and in many ways it is even more important to me than Buddhism. I don't force my convictions on others, but do hope that people will awaken to the fact that "meat" is actually the flesh of a living, breathing thing that was killed against its will. It is an unnecessary brutality that I hope will end as soon as possible. Even if it doesn't, I want no part of it.

So, now that you have heard my particular story, does my insistence on preserving my own diet that I have vowed to keep still strike you as an unhealthy state of mind?

I suppose, in response, I really admire and respect your commitment - especially because it is so palpably based on compassion.

But if you don't mind me pressing you a little philosophically - it is the situations where your personal intention and action does not in any way contribute to the suffering or death of an animal which I am interested in.

So, as an earlier poster wrote - a family has already made a dish which contains some meat in it. You're at the table. There is already a little too much food, whatever is left over will be thrown away.

So, refusing to eat the dish does not actually help the animal, who has already perished.

The intentional act of refusing the dish does at least two things: 1/ It makes it clear that you have a strong ethical position on animals and meat eating, 2/ It puts you at odds with the ethics of the family at the table.

Now, many vegetarians will consider it their ethical responsibility to 'raise the consciousness' of those who have not taken a similar ethical position. In this respect, 1/ & 2/ are both good things - it offers an opportunity to promote a wholesome ethical view, and maybe that will influence just one other person on the table to eat less or no meat, and so, ultimately benefit more animals.

Even if one is humble and does not discuss it overtly, the action of abstaining from the dish could still have that (potentially good) effect.

However, my particular problem with that reasoning, is that it fails to adequately account for the range of different moral theories which people subscribe to, and often tacitly assumes that other people do not have sufficient ethical positions on the question of animals and meat eating.

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

[gregkavarnos]

I tried being vegan for a 3 months and had to stop it as within that short amount of time I developed nutritional edema, fatty liver disease, and high cholesterol, none of which I had previously. Even though I ate many lentils, beans, and other vegan sources of protein it was not enough and really damaged my body. After I developed nutritional edema and couldn't even lock my bedroom door so if I drowned in my sleep (from fluid in my lungs) someone would find my body, I started eating meat again, not but hours later I started feeling better and within 2 days my ankles the size of a pregnant woman's drained of fluid, my liver ALT gradually came down, and my cholesterol levels have improved also.

Even though this post is obviously a troll I will reply anyway. It is actually quite likely that this happened. I think that you will find that the problem is not one of veganism per se but probably based in the lack of a certain type of enzyme produced by the human body that is required to break down some of the "toxic" (to you) constituents found in some legumes. This may have lead to an allergic reaction resulting in the symptoms you describe. The (genetic) condition is called Favaism. It may also be due to your increased consumption of nuts. There is also a genetically based allergic condition to nuts (mainly peanuts). Have you checked your gluten intolerance levels? Vegans tend to eat more grains so...

The reasons you had this reaction are many and varied, it is unlikely that they were due to your veganism because there are lots of vegans out there living a healthy life. Consult an allergologist before you ever decide to go vegan again.

[Dechen Norbu]

I suppose, in response, I really admire and respect your commitment - especially because it is so palpably based on compassion.

[...]

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

One of the best concise analysis I've read regarding this matter.

[Thrasymachus]

...
However, my particular problem with that reasoning, is that it fails to adequately account for the range of different moral theories which people subscribe to, and often tacitly assumes that other people do not have sufficient ethical positions on the question of animals and meat eating.

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

First the original post is obviously a troll(only posted that anti-vegan anecdote and never was seen again), but I had to reply to this since it is such a morally and philosophically weak position typical of our society.

You cannot equate the desire of a sentient being to live and avoid suffering, that is to not die, with not offending the feelings of some meat-eater. Sure the animal is already dead, but by abstaining you show the meat-eaters about you that other ways are possible, that you can live, eat, and thrive having animals murdered against their will. My going vegan has resulted in my friends and family serving more meatless dishes. What you are saying has nothing to do with balance or not being self-centered. Hardly anyone was raised vegan, I wasn't, I went through a process that made me question my self-centeredness and identify externally with the victimization of animals my diet caused. Being self-centered is killing several hundred animals each year that didn't want or have to die just for the pleasure of your palate. Being self-centered is taking the easy option and eating whatever is there because it is most convenient. I am pretty sure where most people on this forum live there are not many readily available venues and prepared food that is vegan.

What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.

[tobes]

...
However, my particular problem with that reasoning, is that it fails to adequately account for the range of different moral theories which people subscribe to, and often tacitly assumes that other people do not have sufficient ethical positions on the question of animals and meat eating.

In this respect, there is something a little too individualist about the moral stance of not eating the dish - instead of the accepting the generosity of someone cooking for you, one is demanding (perhaps tacitly) an ethical response. Instead of seeing the interests of the family, one is singling out the interests of an animal which has already passed away.....that to me, is something of an ethical sleight of hand, particularly if the grounding principle is that of compassion.

First the original post is obviously a troll(only posted that anti-vegan anecdote and never was seen again), but I had to reply to this since it is such a morally and philosophically weak position typical of our society.

You cannot equate the desire of a sentient being to live and avoid suffering, that is to not die, with not offending the feelings of some meat-eater. Sure the animal is already dead, but by abstaining you show the meat-eaters about you that other ways are possible, that you can live, eat, and thrive having animals murdered against their will. My going vegan has resulted in my friends and family serving more meatless dishes. What you are saying has nothing to do with balance or not being self-centered. Hardly anyone was raised vegan, I wasn't, I went through a process that made me question my self-centeredness and identify externally with the victimization of animals my diet caused. Being self-centered is killing several hundred animals each year that didn't want or have to die just for the pleasure of your palate. Being self-centered is taking the easy option and eating whatever is there because it is most convenient. I am pretty sure where most people on this forum live there are not many readily available venues and prepared food that is vegan.

What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.

With respect, I find the hard consequentialist moral logic at play here to be far more morally problematic than the act of eating offered meat that would otherwise be thrown away, or abstaining from eating the meat, but without intending to convert the other eaters to your moral position.

The reason I find it morally problematic, is because it takes a situation which is ontologically social - the sharing of a meal - and imposes a strongly individualistic morality upon that situation, on the explicit predication that this individualistic morality is a/ automatically established as morally superior and b/ that the demonstration of that moral superiority will or at least should influence the other inferior moral actors.

My claim here is that if there is an open and frank discussion of ethics taking place - complete with whiteboards and arguments and Buddhist, Kantian or Utilitarian reasoning available - well, fine. How wonderous to think seriously about ethics, and how great to have a place in which to assert one's particular ethical view. Certainly a kind of sphere in which it is justified to make an argument for why view x is more superior than view y. And perhaps, particularly if one is a Kantian, for why everyone ought to adopt it.

However, a dinner table, in which one is a guest, is not a philosophy department. It is a not a place to attack other peoples moral viewpoint, and certainly not a place to tacitly assume not only the superiority of ones own viewpoint, but that it's so obviously superior that all others should adopt it.

That is simply moral totalitarianism.

So I could grant you that abstaining from the meat politely is in many respects virtuous; but to do so with the active intention of coverting others to the cause offends against their moral autonomy and only establishes an attitude of unfounded moral superiority.

[tobes]

What you are doing is trying to turn diet into a personal consumer and lifestyle choice isolated from its true consequences. Meat is not some neat package behind shrink wrap at the super-market priced on weight and the choiceness of the cut, it is dead flesh of a being that had to die. Let meat-eaters get offended by vegans, going out of your way to eat meat to not offend people is in no way a superior ethical position. The way people live in our society is by victimizing their environment -- both the living and non-living resources in it, going out of your way to help people live this illusion is sacrificing the vital heart for the hand that can be amputated. People need to exit their old habits and question what they as an individual and we as a collective society are doing to other animals and worst of all ourselves.

As for this - well, I'm not sure that I've given the particulars of my own view yet. Nonetheless, I have argued explicitly against the pivot of "consumer choice" which is precisely the logic of utility and consequentialism I have attacked. The moral logic of veganism invariably hangs on utilitarian reasoning - which is predicated on individual choice making (incidently, the same predication utilised by orthodox economics, and practiced by consumers) - Peter Singer is perhaps the most vocal and influential proponent for the ethics of veganism, and he is a dyed in the wool utilitarian.

My own view is one which privileges the social context in which our ethical actions take place - a communal context, not an individualist one. It does not deny the causal reality of animals, nor of humans, nor any of the true consequences which ensue (although I think we need to be humble about assuming we can know consequences before they arise). In the example given in this thread, the suffering of the animal has been taken into account.

I suppose the question for you is: why do you infer that eating the offered meat in situation 1, necessarily leads to more animal suffering in future situations?

[Thrasymachus]

You can dress it up any bs mustard you want, but you equate the life of an animal, that granted already died, with the mere "feelings" of a society of humans living in a selfish, life exhausting manner. When you refuse someone's meat dish, they don't throw it away, they usually just put it in the refrigerator or more likely, they know you are a real vegan, so they don't even offer you any. Ultimately if someone cares about you, they will accommodate you. There is no real such thing as a meat-eater anyway, like say how a cat is one and can only eat meat and not even digest plants. Even the people who eat meat don't solely center their diet on it and when they do partake in meat they dress it up with spices, bread and vegetable to make it palatable. Thus you can just eat their side dishes.

When you are a strict vegan it exerts a rippling influence on those around you that saves more animal lives. If you eat based on not offending people, then you contribute to an industry that as this book title describes Animal machines: The new factory farming industry, reduces living beings to a mere industrial input meant to be maximized for profit. A problem I have with many Buddhists is they make all sorts of weird, overly reaching justifications and ignore the actual impact of the social systems that exist. You think your interpretations of philosophy or Buddhism can trump a knowledge of the modern livestock industries. You have never seen a fictional horror movie that can begin to describe the unimaginable suffering of livestock raised raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO). Their horror-show lives of human imposed efficiency is what has allowed most Westerners to afford meat every meal, everyday if desired, rather than on rare occasions as before. You think people have an anthropocentric sort of right to not be offended that is above the lives of billions of suffering animals that never get to experience or act on any of their natural inclinations, to ensconce people in a mentality where they should never face a potential slight. Ultimately the people wanting to serve a vegan like me meat have a choice, the dead animals they chose to serve didn't have any. Veganism is about taking a lifestyle choice that recognizes that other beings don't/didn't/can't ever choose to die for your tongue, gullet and stomach's benefit.

[tobes]

You can dress it up any bs mustard you want, but you equate the life of an animal, that granted already died, with the mere "feelings" of a society of humans living in a selfish, life exhausting manner. When you refuse someone's meat dish, they don't throw it away, they usually just put it in the refrigerator or more likely, they know you are a real vegan, so they don't even offer you any. Ultimately if someone cares about you, they will accommodate you. There is no real such thing as a meat-eater anyway, like say how a cat is one and can only eat meat and not even digest plants. Even the people who eat meat don't solely center their diet on it and when they do partake in meat they dress it up with spices, bread and vegetable to make it palatable. Thus you can just eat their side dishes.

When you are a strict vegan it exerts a rippling influence on those around you that saves more animal lives. If you eat based on not offending people, then you contribute to an industry that as this book title describes Animal machines: The new factory farming industry, . A problem I have with many Buddhists is they make all sorts of weird, overly reaching justifications and ignore the actual impact of the social systems that exist. You think your interpretations of philosophy or Buddhism can trump a knowledge of the modern livestock industries. You have never seen a fictional horror movie that can begin to describe the unimaginable suffering of livestock raised raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(CAFO). Their horror-show lives of human imposed efficiency is what has allowed most Westerners to afford meat every meal, everyday if desired, rather than on rare occasions as before. You think people have an anthropocentric sort of right to not be offended that is above the lives of billions of suffering animals that never get to experience or act on any of their natural inclinations, to ensconce people in a mentality where they should never face a potential slight. Ultimately the people wanting to serve a vegan like me meat have a choice, the dead animals they chose to serve didn't have any. Veganism is about taking a lifestyle choice that recognizes that other beings don't/didn't/can't ever choose to die for your tongue, gullet and stomach's benefit.

How about you actually deal with my arguments?

I am not defending factory farming, and nor am I defending the status quo of existent social structures.

I simply asserted a contextual and particularist ethical response to a hypothetical situation - it's not weird or over reaching to infer that when meat has already been served to you, your actions do not have any consequential effect on the deceased animal. And that therefore, your ethical priority ought to be the consideration of the sentient beings in your immanence and immediacy.

I think that your ethics prioritises animals over humans. I do not assert that it should be the contrary - but rather that both need to be considered carefully.

To put this point clearly, I am reminded of a class I used to teach which dealt with the issue of sweatshops in China and other places. When I asked 'who is usually prepared to pay more for free range eggs rather than battery hen eggs?' Almost everyone, possibly everyone, raised their hands.

Then I asked 'who is usually prepared to pay more for non-sweatshop produced clothing such as t-shirts and jeans?'

Maybe one or two people raised their hands.

Ergo: we are more concerned about chickens in situations which, as you put it "reduces living beings to a mere industrial input meant to be maximized for profit" than we are humans.

[Nemo]

I would agree with your views on Vegans. Freegans have the moral high ground IMO, especially if they eat discarded meat. Vegans are often zealots with notions of purity and superiority to the rest of society that come off as childish and self absorbed. In reality most people think of them as in the same light as Jehovah's Witness's, but not as nice smelling.

Though I find Freeganism disgusting(dumpster snacking) I do give them their due. That is a Bodhisattva lifestyle.

[tobes]

I would agree with your views on Vegans. Freegans have the moral high ground IMO, especially if they eat discarded meat. Vegans are often zealots with notions of purity and superiority to the rest of society that come off as childish and self absorbed. In reality most people think of them as in the same light as Jehovah's Witness's, but not as nice smelling.

Though I find Freeganism disgusting(dumpster snacking) I do give them their due. That is a Bodhisattva lifestyle.

Freeganism is pretty cool, although I'm not a practitioner myself....

For the record, I'm not making any kind of comment on Vegans per se. They come in many forms - some admirable and some zealots. I suppose what I'm questioning is the coherency of Veganism, as a moral....what should we call it?.....a moral-political movement which universalises its position.

I would be tempted to characterise it as an ideology - in the sense that it kind of demands absolute fidelity, it (often but not always) strongly shapes personal identity, it seeks to make the world conform to it, and there are elements which inhere within it which are quite irrational.

As an example of the latter, Veganism holds that harvesting honey from a bee hive is morally wrong because the producer (i.e. the bee) is exploited - but has nothing at all to say about situations where human producers are exploited. It seems to me that if you abstain from commodities where there is animal exploitation involved, you are logically committed to abstaining from just about every commodity available in the marketplace. Humans are a kind of animal too.....

[gregkavarnos]

Whereas choosing to eat corpses is not ideologically based, it is not a moral-political movement, it is not irrational? Its logic is not purely anthropocentric? It is based on a coherent and intelligent analysis? Workers in the meat industry are not exploited and destroyed both physucally and psychologically by their work?

Yeah, right!

Anyway, what in tarnations does working in sweatshops have to do with choosing not to eat and utilise animal products???

Sorry Tobes, but the fancy and academic nature of your language does not sucessfully cover up the weakness of your arguments.

[catmoon]

Anyway, what in tarnations does working in sweatshops have to do with choosing not to eat and utilise animal products???

They are both exploitation. One exploits people, the other exploits animals. If one's ethics do not allow harming others for one's own benefit, then neither is permitted.

[gregkavarnos]

Sorry, but the last time I looked we didn't hang sweat shop labourers up by their legs, slit their throat and pull out their intestines while they were still alive, in order to satisfy our palate. At least not the last time I checked we didn't.

[Dechen Norbu]

No, but for instance:

What do pesticide active ingredients do?

Insects have a nervous system similar to mammals. Their nervous system is made up of nerve cells that pass an impulse from one point, to the brain, then illicit a response back to that sensory point. Many pesticides exploit the system's "shut off valve", meaning the impulses continue to fire over and over (or in some cases never start).

Imagine feeling pain never stops, hunger pains that don't go away, or even the smallest sensations that just compile and compile and compile on top of each other. Eventually, the pest becomes over loaded and dies because their organs and nervous system shut down.

In some cases, as mentioned above, the pesticide's active ingredients may keep nerve impulses from ever firing. This includes the impulses that are vital to keep organs working (triggering the heart beat for example).

And

Seven of the most toxic chemical compounds know to man are approved for use as pesticides in the production of foods! Who approved them? A multinational organization called The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). It was formed in 1963 from a cooperative effort between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Their overall objective was "…to protect the health of the consumer and ensure fair practices." The intent of the original 172 nations involved in this effort was to develop a set of food guidelines, standards, and codes of practice. It was to be an international endeavor to promote safety in food. In spite of their stated consumer protection responsibilities, the CAC approved toxic chemicals for use on our crops. These toxins are referred to as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP's). They're called persistent because they are not easily removed from the environment.

Pesticides can be toxic to humans and lower animals. It can take a small amount of some toxins to kill. And other toxins that are slower acting, may take a long time to cause harm to the human body.

Pesticide production can be dangerous, too. One disaster at a pesticide manufacturing plant was in Bhopal, India. The plant accidentally released 40 tons of an intermediate chemical gas, methyl isocyanate, used to produce some pesticides. In that disaster, nearly 3,000 people were killed immediately, overall approximately 15,000 deaths occurred. Today nearly 100,000 people suffer from mild to severe permanent damage as a result of that disaster.¹

In China, it's estimated that 500,000 people suffer pesticide poisoning annually, and some 500 of them die.

Children seem to be greatly susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides. The Natural Resource Defense Council has collected data which recorded higher incidence of childhood leukemia, brain cancer and birth defects. These results correlated with early exposure to pesticides.

Let's not forget child and slave labour in agriculture, how exploitation and abuse stalks migrant workers even in the west and so on and so forth.



Unless we all go Organic, which for the time being is an utopia (the world would starve), we're bound to generate suffering. Even if we go Organic, pest control will generate suffering (excruciating in some cases). A lot of suffering.

Nobody is off the hook, whether eating veggies or meat. Let's keep that in mind so that we don't have smart-arsses here thinking their ethics is superior.
Each time we feed ourselves, we are feeding upon the suffering of countless beings. That's the most important lesson, if you ask me. Not splitting hairs about what causes more suffering, since in fact the amount of suffering caused in all cases is so huge that in my own case I recently came to the conclusion that it is futile to keep those debates going.

Besides, this is not the adequate sub forum to debate this usse, so let's get

[Thrasymachus]

So you are still arguing that as long as the murder of the animal was already done:
a) you are not co-participating by taking the flesh
b) the system that the animal was brought up in that not only kills it but treats it as an animal industrial input has no bearing and is irrelevant, despite that is ONLY reason why the average person in the West can partake in it so often, and offer it to you
c) the feelings of the people who don't care about how their food came to them matters most

You can justify so many crimes by saying the deed was already done, I don't want to offend the person next to me who doesn't want to care. Also the authoritarian type of social power you excercise/d as a teacher by its nature involves/d more dictating positions to much more people than I could manage in my whole life, if I even tried. People generally don't want to be told what to learn and then given a performance value: A - F or 100/100 or 50/100. This is the type of conundrum that emerges when you ignore systems theory, that people operate in social systems, not as individual wannabe bodhisattvas(which even in Buddhism few practitioners will be). I just let people around me know I don't do drugs or eat animal products, simple as that. Your actions always do have interdependent effects on those around you and being a strict vegan not scared to offend people does effect animals and the livestock industries. And it has consequences: IE: my family just make more of the countless national dishes of the type our own family used to make back when their country was poorer and they rarely eat meat, saving more lives, supporting the livestock industries less. In private, never in group, my burnout friends admit they are sick of using drugs to numb themselves all the time. One of my friends who does not care about veganism semi-often goes together with me to local vegan venues. So you save more animals in the future through the rippling effects caused simply by personally refusing meat. Veganism formed as a response during a time when meat for the first time became a year long, constant possibility for even many of the poorer classes in Western societies, and it is a response against the system that allows this. To say that veganism has nothing to say about human exploitation is ridiculous, because it is not a total system(like apparently many here take Buddhism to be) it is just a ethical dietary movement and you could say it is also part of the animal liberation movement.

@Dechen:
In the country I live, the USA, 80-90 percent of major grains and corn go to feed livestock. Not to mention it creates lots of fecal waste that does not have to be processed and is dumped raw into pits and directly in waterways. Also it takes 12,000 gallons of water for a pound of beef versus 100-200 hundred gallons for a pound of vegetable matter. You can contribute to less suffering, less resource waste by going vegetarian, vegan than by eating organic meat. I don't know how you can equivalate the two when it takes so much more suffering and resources to grow one than the other.